liara_stop_app

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Stop an app (scale down)' implies a state-changing operation that likely reduces resources or halts execution, but it doesn't specify whether this is reversible, requires specific permissions, affects availability, or has side effects. The parenthetical adds some context but leaves critical behavioral questions unanswered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise at just 4 words, with zero wasted language. The core action is front-loaded ('Stop an app'), and the parenthetical '(scale down)' efficiently adds clarifying context without unnecessary elaboration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a state-changing operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'scale down' means operationally, what happens to the app's state, whether data is preserved, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity of stopping an application and the lack of structured metadata, more behavioral context is needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'name' fully documented as 'The name of the app to stop.' The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. The baseline of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value addition.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('stop') and resource ('an app'), with the parenthetical '(scale down)' providing additional context about the action. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like liara_stop_database or liara_stop_vm, which perform similar stopping operations on different resource types.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., app must be running), consequences of stopping, or when to choose this over liara_restart_app or liara_delete_app. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.